In the 'gamut' the effects are in sequence, but they have all the same physical antecedent. _e_^1 _e_^2 _e_^3 _e_^4 _e_^5 | | | | | +------+------+------+------+ | C The successive acts of the same man or animal are of this kind. In each of these species the effects are in series and may be treated as a sequence, but the cause or causes lie outside the sequence. Far from mere regularity of succession being a proof of causation between the objects, it may very easily be itself a part of the causal design. In the 'capstan' several partial causes contribute to produce one effect, as when a gang of men manipulate one engine. C C \ / C--_e_--C / \ C C The 'star' or 'fountain' is the converse of the last. A single cause produces several simultaneous partial _e_ _e_ \ / _e_--C--_e_ / \ _e_ _e_ effects, as when we strike our open hand smartly on the surface of water. These sub-categories enable us, if we so wish, to define an energic series somewhat more precisely than by calling it a causation in the most abstract sense. Possibly also the figures delineated represent the primitive forms which energy takes when emerging into the phenomenal. The 'star' is a most characteristic form. The dendritic shape so frequently met with in objects is a star springing from a ray of a preceding star. Perhaps each vegetable bud has an independent cause; if not they are 'ricochets' from the general plant life. In the combinations of these elementary effects we have a likely explanation of plant and crystal formation. _'Conservation' of Energy._ Energy is annihilated in the using. It emanates from a great universal centre, and at a short distance from that centre is completely and irrecoverably dissipated. The apparent fixity of things is purely formal--like the fixity of a water-fall, which renews its substance every few seconds. That is the meaning of saying that the world is in a constant state of formation and dissolution. Physical theorists represent energy under the figure of substance, but they suppose it is fixed in _quantity_ though constantly undergoing change of _form_--the scientific view, here as elsewhere, being just the opposite of the philosophical. Observe--say the conservationists--the case of a man raising a heavy stone from the earth. He fatigues himself but he does not destroy energy; he acquires command over the energy-in-position of the stone, and in using it to crack a cocoa-nut or drive a post he receives back his own energy undiminished in quantity. That seems reasonable at first sight. A quantity of energy is taken from the man and put into the stone; it is taken from the stone and put into the driven post. To be sure, if the man undrives the post he does not thereby disfatigue himself, as the theory would lead us to expect--he fatigues himself the more.